Global Warming, the new religion.

Ok, first disclaimer: this thread is not for discussing whether or not man made Global Warming is true.

Recently I have been listening to people defending man made global warming against skeptics and I am being reminded strongly of fanatical religious discussions defending religion against skeptics. For them it is something one shouldn't even question. It appears to have become a matter of blind faith.

So as I was wondering to myself if it had become a matter of "religion" for many I discovered an article that hit upon what I was thinking.

I've been waiting a long time to see real science applied to global warming.

Finally, there's a bit of rationality applied to the subject.

Not that there haven't always been real scientists involved. But either they, or the people writing about their work, have been functioning like "creation scientists" -- they are already convinced, so instead of testing their own ideas, they turn whatever data comes along into "proof" of their belief in order to persuade the ignorant unbeliever.

Whether the temperature's going up or down, whether they're talking about the fall of civilizations or the disappearance of species in ancient times, it's always somehow a proof or demonstration or warning about the peril of global warming.

The sky is falling, so we must shoot the dog.

Here are the questions we've always faced on this issue:

1. Has global temperature risen?

2. If so, how much?

3. Is this out of line with temperature fluctuations in the past?

4. What have the consequences of global temperature change been so far?

5. What have the consequences of warming or cooling been in the past?

6. How rapid are the changes?

7. To what degree are today's global temperatures the result of human activities?

8. What evidence is there that current changes, if any, are part of a broad trend rather than a temporary fluctuation?

9. If human activity is causing global warming, then what is the cost of stopping those human activities compared to the cost of allowing global warming to continue?

10. When computer models are used to predict future temperature trends, how do we know that all significant variables have been included?

11. How well have these computer models predicted temperature change in the past?

12. How do we know that human activity that causes global warming is not saving us from even worse global temperature change?

Time and again, I've read the little religious testimonies from scientists and writers about science, bearing witness to their personal faith in global warming, without seeing even a hint that they have addressed any of the questions above except in the most superficial way.

Most of them seem to start with the article of faith that any unexplained phenomenon is the result of human actions, and any phenomenon resulting from human actions must be bad, and any price humans must pay to stop doing these bad things is worth it.

It's the New Calvinism: Humans are evil by nature and should be punished, even if the punishment won't solve the problem, and even if the problem is actually better than the "solution."

So what do you think? Has belief in Global Warming risen to levels of religious fervor? Is it something that "must be believed" without question or is it simply a matter of some political debate?

Re: Global Warming, the new religion.

I would have to say that it has become something of a religious fervor, and also been compounded by poltical debate. The arguments surrounding global warming are completely on opposite sides of the scale, and there is absolutely no room for any middle ground in the debate.

Without going into what causes global warming, I'll just say that the Earth does go through transitory stages of environment, otherwise there wouldn't have been an ice age, because the environment would have stayed the same. That doesn't happen.

But the lines of argument with global warming are so diametrically opposite, that there is no allowance for any argument in the middle ground. Add to that political leanings, and the debate is split into factions.

You have those on the left saying that global warming is caused by humans, who help screw up the world each day by spending money, because it funds big corperations who spill more toxins into the air, and by driving a car to work you're dooming the entire planet.

On the right side, you have those who say global warming isn't a big deal (or that there IS no global warming) and that any mention of it is fear mongering done by liberal whiners.

The debate is so heated that the two sides pretty much try and force you to unquestionably believe what they are saying, and there's no room for minutely disagreeing. Anyone who tries to argue in the middle ground generally gets losts in the argument because the two sides are screaming so loud. The news media isn't going to pay attention to anyone arguing the middle ground, because the two main sides provide better stories.

It's really become a matter of "you are" or "you aren't." In all honesty, the majority of people who argue either side probably aren't that well educated about their argument, and are simply following along with the flock because they believe what they are being told (or screamed should I say hehe)......since science isn't able to prove either side of the argument, the matter comes down to simple belief in what is being said (trying to link this to religion). There is no middle ground.

*EDIT: I should say that I'm basing this post on how this topic is presented through the media. However, in terms of the divided line between the arguments, I can certainly say that if I were to go to my university and say that global warming is just a natural occurence, I would be swarmed immediately and told how I was wrong, and that human civilization is to blame for everything.

Actually, I can give a little example of this. I was at the university the other day returning books to the library, and had parked in a 15 minute parking zone. My friend stayed in the car, and I left it running since I was only going to be two seconds, simply dropping the books into the return box. Once I got back to the car, my friend told me that while I was gone, someone had driven up in a truck, gotten out, and started telling my friend to turn the car off because letting it idle was destroying the earth, and bad for the environment.

Re: Global Warming, the new religion.

If treating it as a religion will decrease our pollution I'm even willing to tolerate a global warming pope.

People who deny that it's there are wrong. Plain and simple. The climate IS getting warmer and wetter. (Whether it is temporary or not I don't know.)

All the people who say "it isn't all that bad" should just put a sock in it. Even IF it isn't all that bad. Why? because you can at least try to decrease the problem.
Man-made/natural causes/combination/... It doesn't matter, the problem is there and we had best start doing something about it lest we want to have more desert and gigantic floods.

Re: Global Warming, the new religion.

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Also complicating the issue is the time factor. By the time there is solid proof that Global warming is occurring, and to the extent of the change that will happen, it will already be too late to do anything about it.

Pushing the concept of Global Warming is almost like the concept of selling insurance. Insurance is not something the buyer can make money on, and no one wants to be in the position to collect on it. But when you need that Insurance, you need it badly...

Re: Global Warming, the new religion.

If treating it as a religion will decrease our pollution I'm even willing to tolerate a global warming pope.

Ummm... Hassun, I didn't expect you to prove me right so clearly.

Originally Posted by LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Also complicating the issue is the time factor. By the time there is solid proof that Global warming is occurring, and to the extent of the change that will happen, it will already be too late to do anything about it.

So, on subject, it's like finding out if God is real when you die?

I keep hearing that scientists who don't support the theory are having their funding slashed and being censored by various governments. It reminds me of how the Catholic church used to censor scientific discoveries.

Re: Global Warming, the new religion.

I guess it is a bit of a religious fever because people talk about it as if they are actually worshipping it and a political debate due to the fact that there are leaders like John Howard the prime minister of Australia and Tony Blair the British talking about the global warming issue.Globla warming is bound to affect the younger generation more than the elder and it is they who should find the solution to solve it.Sure there isn't much we can do about it,but doing every little thing by everyone can make a huge difference.

Re: Global Warming, the new religion.

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Originally Posted by Arrianna

:... I keep hearing that scientists who don't support the theory are having their funding slashed and being censored by various governments. It reminds me of how the Catholic church used to censor scientific discoveries.

Though of course, it's different in this country, as the Bush administration has gone so far as to edit government funded scientific papers and reports to lessen the degree of the findings, and have tried to muzzle scientists working working in federal government research divisions from speaking to the press...

Re: Global Warming, the new religion.

Originally Posted by LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Though of course, it's different in this country, as the Bush administration has gone so far as to edit government funded scientific papers and reports to lessen the degree of the findings, and have tried to muzzle scientists working working in federal government research divisions from speaking to the press...

Links please. That's quite the statement without something to back it up.